Modern island landraces

[Thesearch]

Not mine. At this point its already been proven that se asian sativas have been compromised. Though I would believe there are still pure ones growing in some private gardens

just curious, what are you growing/what do you consider the purest sativas publically available?

 

[TheDarkStorm]

Isnt the way a plant expresses and looks more a adaptation of a plant to its environment rather than a indication of purity..especially wen just looking at slim leaves vs broader leaves....ive seen the exact same cutting express differently over various conditions and nutrient regiments as well as differing light spectrums, conditions and types....your beter off looking at a number of factors rather than just slim vs wider leaves...and realy you should be concentrating on effect.

 

[DownDeepInside]

Is there such a thing as a 'pure ibiza' landarce ?

 

[Thesearch]

Isnt the way a plant expresses and looks more a adaptation of a plant to its environment rather than a indication of purity..especially wen just looking at slim leaves vs broader leaves....ive seen the exact same cutting express differently over various conditions and nutrient regiments as well as differing light spectrums, conditions and types....your beter off looking at a number of factors rather than just slim vs wider leaves...and realy you should be concentrating on effect.

nld vs wld are definitely known morphological differences between officially named subspecies. they do express differently according to environments, but within reason. modern indian varieties tend to have a wide variance of leaf width within varieties that have more stability in other ways. this is fairly normal now, but originally maybe not so much. it is in my opinion reasonable to believe that since thinner leaved varieties tend to arise in high humidity jungle type environments that this trait was developed through environmental pressure to avoid mold/rot in these environments. if the plant has these genes, even recessive, it will express eventually when landraced to an area that repeats these pressures. does this mean it is uncontaminated? no, of course not, but it is also reasonable to assume that if it does not *consistently* display these traits, that it has somewhat recent ancestry that is not aboriginal to the area it is landraced in. we are not talking about a couple hundred generations, more like thousands-millions. cannabis has been cultivated in these regions by humans for at least thousands of years though, so to make claims to what is aboriginal is only really possible through genetic testing and fossil records, and is not really realistic. all the heady stuff aside, I would say that if you want consistent "pure sativa" genetics, it is more likely to be found in the more extreme "sativa" expressed phenotypes. Take a look at some phylos reports of supposedly pure sativas, like malawi and panama, then look at ethiopian or honduras. clearly the genetic reports are saying the more dense "pure sativas" have genetics more similar to modern indica/sativa hybrids, and when we look at the history of all these regions, I think it would be ignorant to assume this genetic mixing isn't possible. For what it is worth, my research seems to indicate that string of pearl and wheat phenos almost always have stimulating effects and dense buds almost always have at least some heaviness/narcotic effect associated with them. same with dark colours. of course you could breed a string of pearl pheno to have indica expressions but why would you? for this reason I think that the consistent string of pearl/wheat expressing plants also probably have the least chances of genetic contamination with indicas or modern hybrids. It seems to be actually, that original indica subspecies plants had ~1:1 thc:cbd ratios, and was in all likelihood bred with sativa subspecies to create many modern "indica" hashplants and apical ancestors. most aboriginal plants adopted to human cultivation seem to have had multiple purposes, including fibre use, so it is unlikely, since aboriginal "sativa" subspecies fulfil all of these purposes, that people would have had reason to be breeding indica genetics into their varieties until modern pressures of demand/trafficking, hence both the modern "sativa" contamination, and the possibility of still finding relatively pure "sativas". I would look at all of the extreme characteristics of "sativas" in order to find the best candidates. as onlypuresativas said, this isn't just leaf width, but also tall height and long flowering times, and also imo terpene profiles, cannabinoid ratios, bud density, calyx, trichome and stamen size, the position on leaflets of its widest point, and of course, experienced effect. besides morphology and effects, I would say looking into the history of the area is paramount as well. tajikistan has aboriginal "indica", "sativa" and "ruderalis" plants, for example, so is not a good candidate for a "pure sativa" even if it met all of the other requirements. I would also take into consideration human history of areas of concern. This is actually a very fascinating topic and I highly recommend reading the study I posted on clarification of cannabis subspecies and their genetic contamination. it is much more in depth then this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7148385/